Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Q: Does the Preferred Enemy special rule allow you to re-roll
Gets Hot rolls of 1 for blast weapons (e.g. a plasma cannon)?
A: Yes.

Hooray!

Q: Does the ability to re-roll 1s allow you to re-roll scatter dice?
A: No.

Boo!

At least there's a definitive answer.

Worth a whole re-read some changes again from their previous position on the FAcebook change.


Also final no-no for abtle brothers sharing transports on deployment, only exception is 2 detachments from same fation.

Lord Perversor wrote:
Worth a whole re-read some changes again from their previous position on the FAcebook change.


Also final no-no for abtle brothers sharing transports on deployment, only exception is 2 detachments from same fation.

Which might be important depending on which units are listed as part of Codex: Imperial Agents.

So, unless I am missing something it is no longer allowed to take Krannon (the Crimson Slaughter) lord? In the (6th ed) Codex I have he was shown as a special character but created as a Lord with 3 crimson slaughter artifacts, the relevant other wargear and no marks.

They kept the stupid "only one model may use a grenade in assault" grenade ruling. Shame.

Q: Do non-scoring and non-Victory Point units such as Spore
Mines count as ‘units destroyed’ on Tactical Objective cards?
A: Yes, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Lol, well there goes the Tyranid army that you can't score Slay the Warlord against. Shame, because I thought that was REALLY clever!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q: Can you clarify the term ‘deploy’?
A: ‘Deploy’ is a word for setting up a unit on the battlefield – this is something you do during deployment, but also when units arrive from Reserve and so on. ‘Deployment’ is the stage in ‘Preparing For Battle’ where the players set up their armies on
the battlefield.

I'm pretty sure this puts the Genestealer Cult making snap shots on arrival to bed. Deploying your models from Cult Ambush is the same as Arriving from Reserves, and so is definitely considered movement!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q: Does a unit that is embarked on a Transport that Jinks also count as having Jinked?
A: No.

Huge, but not as big as this...

Q: If a blast template scatters onto a Skimmer, can that Skimmer still Jink even though it was not actually targeted by the shot?
A: No.

Looks like we're back to using blasts to richochet stuff again!

When charging,
the Jump model may use its jump pack (if it did not do
so in the Movement phase) to re-roll the charge distance
– however that model, and only that model, must use the
new distance rolled.

Good tweak.

Overall, I think it's a good FAQ. Here's my highlights:

MCs/GMCs must be 25% obscured by cover in order to obtain a cover save.

Only one grenade may be used per unit per phase (including assault). So, 15 tankbustas get to use a single melta bomb in CC. I'm not a fan, but it is what it is.

Jinking has no effect on embarked passengers. Change from the draft.

One relic per model.

Blasts and templates hit all units underneath them, regardless of multiple levels.

PE does let you reroll gets hot, another change from the draft.

Blasts/templates that obtain the skyfire rule can't target a flyer. Change from the draft.

Formation rules do not apply to attached HQs (such as HQs attached to the skyhammer formation).

MCs (and presumably walkers, superheavies, etc) cannot assault multiple enemy units. A change from the draft.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

MCs (and presumably walkers, superheavies, etc) cannot assault multiple enemy units. A change from the draft.

The wording for this sucks as it has no bearing on "single model units" or units of MCs. There is no "presumably". This applies to MCs only
It can be argued that single model units can still attempt to charge 2 units, as long as they aren't MCs
And that unit of 3 Carnifexes cannot multi-charge no matter what because the FAQ.

"Psykers embarked in Transports or buildings can only cast Witchfire powers."

I'm not a big fan of that ruling. You would think that they should be able to cast blessings on a unit in the transport or building with them, or on the transport if it's that kind of blessing.

 Galef wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

MCs (and presumably walkers, superheavies, etc) cannot assault multiple enemy units. A change from the draft.

The wording for this sucks as it has no bearing on "single model units" or units of MCs. There is no "presumably". This applies to MCs only
It can be argued that single model units can still attempt to charge 2 units, as long as they aren't MCs
And that unit of 3 Carnifexes cannot multi-charge no matter what because the FAQ.

Honestly, I don't think the concept of single models multi assaulting was even introduced until the draft FAQ - at least, I hadn't ever heard of it. I don't think it has an official ruling in the BRB. So, I don't know if MCs only are restricted, as there's nothing that allows it for other units, to the best of my knowledge.

And for a brood of MCs, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to multi assault. The rule seems to apply just to lone MCs.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They kept the stupid "only one model may use a grenade in assault" grenade ruling. Shame.

I'm okay with this, personally it never made sense to me that a whole squad would just start chucking grenades at something like baseballs. That's not how actual combat works. What I do think they should have done to compensate was change the strength of some of the different grenades to make them more viable
now.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

Honestly, I don't think the concept of single models multi assaulting was even introduced until the draft FAQ - at least, I hadn't ever heard of it. I don't think it has an official ruling in the BRB. So, I don't know if MCs only are restricted, as there's nothing that allows it for other units, to the best of my knowledge.

I've known of this issue since 5th ed. Under the 7th ed rules, it is "possible" but mathematically improbably if you must move in a straight line to your primary target. I liked that they changed the answer to "No", but wish they worded it more inclusively

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

And for a brood of MCs, I can't see why they wouldn't be able to multi assault. The rule seems to apply just to lone MCs.

"Seems to apply" doesn't mean it does.
My point is that the wording they used was sloppy, and has everything to do with the question that was posed by "us"
What you ask the right question, you get a better answer. Whoever asked "Can an MC charge multiple units?" should have asked "Can a single model unit charge multiple units?"


So this one I think "we" and GW can take a bit of blame for the ambiguity.
"Us" for asking a less thorough question and GW for not rewording it for clarity.

 Togusa wrote:
What I do think they should have done to compensate was change the strength of some of the different grenades to make them more viable
now.

Or better yet, make it so that the 1 grenade you get to use auto-hits. It would represent how the other members of the unit are "distracting" the target so that the 1 model using the grenade gets it attacks. That's that way it works in movies anyway.

-

 Togusa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They kept the stupid "only one model may use a grenade in assault" grenade ruling. Shame.

. . .That's not how actual combat works. . .

Obviously I can't change the ruling, but that argument never made sense to me for a number of reasons. But rather than re-hash that entire debate, the clearest issue with the ruling to me is the "twenety-man unit with lots of grenades is only as effective as a three-man unit with one grenade."

Monstrous Creature Independent Characters CANNOT join units now.

- Wraithseer just got a pretty big nerf.
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".
- How do you use Farsight Enclaves with O'vesa? Can it still start as a part of the Eight, but just never join a new unit?

Brotherhood of psykers just got a huge buff. One casting of iron arm affects the whole unit. Cursed earth dont stack. You can summon daemonkin bloodthirsters!!

-these were my takeaways. The brotherhood one is huge.

 Dayknight wrote:

Brotherhood of psykers just got a huge buff. One casting of iron arm affects the whole unit. Cursed earth dont stack. You can summon daemonkin bloodthirsters!!

-these were my takeaways. The brotherhood one is huge.

These are all unchanged from the FAQ first drafts posted last May.

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

Hey look, it seems they changed the absurdity of the draft's Gets Hot ruling, allowing re-rolls of a 1+ to work with Blasts again.

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

And casting the amount of psy powers equal to your level is an intresting shake up as now a level 1 casts one power even though they may know 2 or more. Level 2 powers and so on. They also confirmed the one power attempt per unit per power regardless if an independant character is there with the same powers.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

Where on Earth does the not an MC part come from? The rule just makes the Tyrant an IC when trying to join the Tyrant Guard which does nothing now.

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

Where on Earth does the not an MC part come from? The rule just makes the Tyrant an IC when trying to join the Tyrant Guard which does nothing now.

The rule states it acts like a IC that CAN.. again "CAN" join this unit.... why is that so hard for you? Now you are just arguing semantics to argue.

Rules state "Codex rules over BrB" Codex states "This unit CAN join the Hive Tyrant"

End.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

IC is not a unity type, it's a special rule. If you treat a Monstrous Creature as an Independent Character, it becomes a Monstrous Creature Independent Character, it doesn't lose it's Monstrous Creature unit type.

I am arguing this because that's what the YMDC forums are for. To discuss what the exact RAW of a given rule is. While Codex does usually win over BRB, there is no conflict here for it to win out on. The Codex gives you permission to treat the MC as if it had the independent character special rule for the purpose of joining a particular unit. No problem there. You now have a unit that may join exactly as if it were an independent character. Unfortunately, The Independent Character rule was just changed in the FAQ to restrict what Independent Characters can join. So while the codex rule successfully treats the Tyrant as an independent character, it does not give it permission to ignore all the normal joining restrictions.

Just like giving a unit permission to shoot as if it had a bolter would not allow it to shoot after it had already run. Permission to shoot is not permission to ignore shooting restrictions. Permission to join is not permission to ignore joining restrictions.

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

IC is not a unity type, it's a special rule. If you treat a Monstrous Creature as an Independent Character, it becomes a Monstrous Creature Independent Character, it doesn't lose it's Monstrous Creature unit type.

I am arguing this because that's what the YMDC forums are for. To discuss what the exact RAW of a given rule is. While Codex does usually win over BRB, there is no conflict here for it to win out on. The Codex gives you permission to treat the MC as if it had the independent character special rule for the purpose of joining a particular unit. No problem there. You now have a unit that may join exactly as if it were an independent character. Unfortunately, The Independent Character rule was just changed in the FAQ to restrict what Independent Characters can join. So while the codex rule successfully treats the Tyrant as an independent character, it does not give it permission to ignore all the normal joining restrictions.

Just like giving a unit permission to shoot as if it had a bolter would not allow it to shoot after it had already run. Permission to shoot is not permission to ignore shooting restrictions. Permission to join is not permission to ignore joining restrictions.

yes... it can join that unit..... are you arguing it cant?

Or are you arguing it cant leave then rejoin, and use its IC and MC rules to do buffs? What are you even arguing at this point?

The BRB's current as writen now even say you cant join IC to MC into units in the 1st paragraph. This never been an issue before.

Edit: Quoted from you "It doesnt lose MC rule b.c its IC" well vice versa

Okay, let's compare that to another rule that says a unit can do something. Eldar Crystal Targeting Matrix. - "One use only. A non-Walker vehicle with this upgrade can fire one weapon, at the vehicle’s full Ballistic Skill, after moving Flat Out in the Shooting phase."

The unit CAN.. again "CAN" fire a weapon at full ballistic skill. Can the unit fire at full ballistic skill if it jinked? No, it must snap fire. Saying a unit CAN do something does not give it permission to ignore every other restriction that would affect that action. Saying a unit "can" do something gives it permission to attempt it, while obeying all normal restrictions unless specifically stated otherwise.

So while the Tyrant has permission to attempt to join as if it were an Independent Character, the new FAQ has made it so that a Monstrous Creature Independent Character would not be able to join, so the join attempt fails.


This has nothing to do with independent characters joining MC units, this has to do with Monstrous Creature Independent Characters joining normal units - which they cannot do as per the new FAQ.

"Q: If a Monstrous Creature is also an Independent Character,
can it join other units? Can other Independent Characters then
join the unit that the Monstrous Creature is now a part of?
A: No, to both question."

Q: If the Veil of Darkness is used while with a group of warriors and you go into Ongoing Reserves due to a Deep Strike Mishap, can you come in by Deep Striking?
A: Only if all of the models involved have the Deep Strike rule.

Q: If a unit has successfully manifested the Gate of Infinity psychic power but mishaps with its Deep Strike and gets the Delayed result, how does it come back into play the next round – walking on from its own table edge or by Deep Strike?
A: It arrives by Deep Strike.

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can units from two Detachments with the same Faction embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: Yes.

Double Standards still exist.

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

No Chapter Masters for the Demi-Company.

Still that crap about ICs not having detachment rules apply to them, never mind that most operate in the same method as Stubborn, Slow and Purposeful, etc.

And still that crap about using a grenade in Assault as being "thrown".